- •Lens Design Fundamentals
- •Contents
- •Preface to the Second Edition
- •Preface to the First Edition
- •A Special Tribute to Rudolf Kingslake
- •1.1. Relations Between Designer and Factory
- •1.1.1 Spherical versus Aspheric Surfaces
- •1.1.2 Establishment of Thicknesses
- •1.1.3 Antireflection Coatings
- •1.1.4 Cementing
- •1.1.5 Establishing Tolerances
- •1.1.6 Design Tradeoffs
- •1.2. The Design Procedure
- •1.2.1 Sources of a Likely Starting System
- •1.2.2 Lens Evaluation
- •1.2.3 Lens Appraisal
- •1.2.4 System Changes
- •1.3. Optical Materials
- •1.3.1 Optical Glass
- •1.3.2 Infrared Materials
- •1.3.3 Ultraviolet Materials
- •1.3.4 Optical Plastics
- •1.4. Interpolation of Refractive Indices
- •1.4.1 Interpolation of Dispersion Values
- •1.4.2 Temperature Coefficient of Refractive Index
- •1.5. Lens Types to be Considered
- •2.1. Introduction
- •2.1.1 Object and Image
- •2.1.2 The Law of Refraction
- •2.1.3 The Meridional Plane
- •2.1.4 Types of Rays
- •2.1.5 Notation and Sign Conventions
- •2.2. Graphical Ray Tracing
- •2.3. Trigonometrical Ray Tracing at a Spherical Surface
- •2.3.1 Program for a Computer
- •2.4. Some Useful Relations
- •2.4.1 The Spherometer Formula
- •2.4.2 Some Useful Formulas
- •2.4.3 The Intersection Height of Two Spheres
- •2.4.4 The Volume of a Lens
- •2.5. Cemented Doublet Objective
- •2.6. Ray Tracing at a Tilted Surface
- •2.6.1 The Ray Tracing Equations
- •2.6.2 Example of Ray Tracing through a Tilted Surface
- •2.7. Ray Tracing at an Aspheric Surface
- •3.1. Tracing a Paraxial Ray
- •3.1.1 The Standard Paraxial Ray Trace
- •3.1.2 The (y – nu) Method
- •3.1.3 Inverse Procedure
- •3.1.4 Angle Solve and Height Solve Methods
- •3.1.6 Paraxial Ray with All Angles
- •3.1.7 A Paraxial Ray at an Aspheric Surface
- •3.1.9 Matrix Approach to Paraxial Rays
- •3.2. Magnification and the Lagrange Theorem
- •3.2.1 Transverse Magnification
- •3.2.2 Longitudinal Magnification
- •3.3. The Gaussian Optics of a Lens System
- •3.3.1 The Relation between the Principal Planes
- •3.3.2 The Relation between the Two Focal Lengths
- •3.3.3 Lens Power
- •3.3.4 Calculation of Focal Length
- •3.3.5 Conjugate Distance Relationships
- •3.3.6 Nodal Points
- •3.3.7 Optical Center of Lens
- •3.3.8 The Scheimpflug Condition
- •3.4. First-Order Layout of an Optical System
- •3.4.1 A Single Thick Lens
- •3.4.2 A Single Thin Lens
- •3.4.3 A Monocentric Lens
- •3.4.4 Image Shift Caused by a Parallel Plate
- •3.4.5 Lens Bending
- •3.4.6 A Series of Separated Thin Elements
- •3.4.7 Insertion of Thicknesses
- •3.4.8 Two-Lens Systems
- •3.5. Thin-Lens Layout of Zoom Systems
- •3.5.1 Mechanically Compensated Zoom Lenses
- •3.5.2 A Three-Lens Zoom
- •3.5.4 A Four-Lens Optically Compensated Zoom System
- •3.5.5 An Optically Compensated Zoom Enlarger or Printer
- •Endnotes
- •4.1. Introduction
- •4.2. Symmetrical Optical Systems
- •4.3. Aberration Determination Using Ray Trace Data
- •4.3.1 Defocus
- •4.3.2 Spherical Aberration
- •4.3.3 Tangential and Sagittal Astigmatism
- •4.3.4 Tangential and Sagittal Coma
- •4.3.5 Distortion
- •4.3.6 Selection of Rays for Aberration Computation
- •4.3.7 Zonal Aberrations
- •4.3.8 Tangential and Sagittal Zonal Astigmatism
- •4.3.9 Tangential and Sagittal Zonal Coma
- •4.3.10 Higher-Order Contributions
- •4.4. Calculation of Seidel Aberration Coefficients
- •Endnotes
- •5.1. Introduction
- •5.2. Spherochromatism of a Cemented Doublet
- •5.2.4 Secondary Spectrum
- •5.2.5 Spherochromatism
- •5.3. Contribution of a Single Surface to the Primary Chromatic Aberration
- •5.4. Contribution of a Thin Element in a System to the Paraxial Chromatic Aberration
- •5.5. Paraxial Secondary Spectrum
- •5.7.1 Secondary Spectrum of a Dialyte
- •5.7.2 A One-Glass Achromat
- •5.8. Chromatic Aberration Tolerances
- •5.8.1 A Single Lens
- •5.8.2 An Achromat
- •5.9. Chromatic Aberration at Finite Aperture
- •5.9.1 Conrady’s D – d Method of Achromatization
- •5.9.3 Tolerance for the D – d Sum
- •5.9.5 Paraxial D – d for a Thin Element
- •Endnotes
- •6.1. Surface Contribution Formulas
- •6.1.1 The Three Cases of Zero Aberration at a Surface
- •6.1.2 An Aplanatic Single Element
- •6.1.3 Effect of Object Distance on the Spherical Aberration Arising at a Surface
- •6.1.4 Effect of Lens Bending
- •6.1.6 A Two-Lens Minimum Aberration System
- •6.1.7 A Four-Lens Monochromat Objective
- •6.2. Zonal Spherical Aberration
- •6.3. Primary Spherical Aberration
- •6.3.1 At a Single Surface
- •6.3.2 Primary Spherical Aberration of a Thin Lens
- •6.4. The Image Displacement Caused by a Planoparallel Plate
- •6.5. Spherical Aberration Tolerances
- •6.5.1 Primary Aberration
- •6.5.2 Zonal Aberration
- •Endnotes
- •7.1. The Four-Ray Method
- •7.2. A Thin-Lens Predesign
- •7.2.1 Insertion of Thickness
- •7.2.2 Flint-in-Front Solutions
- •7.3. Correction of Zonal Spherical Aberration
- •7.4. Design Of an Apochromatic Objective
- •7.4.1 A Cemented Doublet
- •7.4.2 A Triplet Apochromat
- •7.4.3 Apochromatic Objective with an Air Lens
- •Endnotes
- •8.1. Passage of an Oblique Beam through a Spherical Surface
- •8.1.1 Coma and Astigmatism
- •8.1.2 Principal Ray, Stops, and Pupils
- •8.1.3 Vignetting
- •8.2. Tracing Oblique Meridional Rays
- •8.2.1 The Meridional Ray Plot
- •8.3. Tracing a Skew Ray
- •8.3.1 Transfer Formulas
- •8.3.2 The Angles of Incidence
- •8.3.3 Refraction Equations
- •8.3.4 Transfer to the Next Surface
- •8.3.5 Opening Equations
- •8.3.6 Closing Equations
- •8.3.7 Diapoint Location
- •8.3.8 Example of a Skew-Ray Trace
- •8.4. Graphical Representation of Skew-Ray Aberrations
- •8.4.1 The Sagittal Ray Plot
- •8.4.2 A Spot Diagram
- •8.4.3 Encircled Energy Plot
- •8.4.4 Modulation Transfer Function
- •8.5. Ray Distribution from a Single Zone of a Lens
- •Endnotes
- •9.1. The Optical Sine Theorem
- •9.2. The Abbe Sine Condition
- •9.2.1 Coma for the Three Cases of Zero Spherical Aberration
- •9.3. Offense Against the Sine Condition
- •9.3.1 Solution for Stop Position for a Given OSC
- •9.3.2 Surface Contribution to the OSC
- •9.3.3 Orders of Coma
- •9.3.4 The Coma G Sum
- •9.3.5 Spherical Aberration and OSC
- •9.4. Illustration of Comatic Error
- •Endnotes
- •10.1. Broken-Contact Type
- •10.2. Parallel Air-Space Type
- •10.3. An Aplanatic Cemented Doublet
- •10.4. A Triple Cemented Aplanat
- •10.5. An Aplanat with A Buried Achromatizing Surface
- •10.6. The Matching Principle
- •Endnotes
- •11.1. Astigmatism and the Coddington Equations
- •11.1.1 The Tangential Image
- •11.1.2 The Sagittal Image
- •11.1.3 Astigmatic Calculation
- •11.1.5 Astigmatism for the Three Cases of Zero Spherical Aberration
- •11.1.6 Astigmatism at a Tilted Surface
- •11.2. The Petzval Theorem
- •11.2.1 Relation Between the Petzval Sum and Astigmatism
- •11.2.2 Methods for Reducing the Petzval Sum
- •11.3. Illustration of Astigmatic Error
- •11.4. Distortion
- •11.4.1 Measuring Distortion
- •11.4.2 Distortion Contribution Formulas
- •11.4.3 Distortion When the Image Surface Is Curved
- •11.5. Lateral Color
- •11.5.1 Primary Lateral Color
- •11.6. The Symmetrical Principle
- •11.7. Computation of the Seidel Aberrations
- •11.7.1 Surface Contributions
- •11.7.2 Thin-Lens Contributions
- •11.7.3 Aspheric Surface Corrections
- •11.7.4 A Thin Lens in the Plane of an Image
- •Endnotes
- •12.1.1 Distortion
- •12.1.2 Tangential Field Curvature
- •12.1.3 Coma
- •12.1.4 Spherical Aberration
- •12.2. Simple Landscape Lenses
- •12.2.1 Simple Rear Landscape Lenses
- •12.2.2 A Simple Front Landscape Lens
- •12.3. A Periscopic Lens
- •12.4. Achromatic Landscape Lenses
- •12.4.1 The Chevalier Type
- •12.4.2 The Grubb Type
- •12.5. Achromatic Double Lenses
- •12.5.1 The Rapid Rectilinear
- •12.5.3 Long Telescopic Relay Lenses
- •12.5.4 The Ross “Concentric” Lens
- •Endnotes
- •13.1. The Design of a Dagor Lens
- •13.2. The Design of an Air-Spaced Dialyte Lens
- •13.4. Double-Gauss Lens with Cemented Triplets
- •13.5. Double-Gauss Lens with Air-spaced Negative Doublets
- •Endnotes
- •14.1. The Petzval Portrait Lens
- •14.1.1 The Petzval Design
- •14.1.2 The Dallmeyer Design
- •14.2. The Design of a Telephoto Lens
- •14.3. Lenses to Change Magnification
- •14.3.1 Barlow Lens
- •14.3.2 Bravais Lens
- •14.4. The Protar Lens
- •14.5. Design of a Tessar Lens
- •14.5.1 Choice of Glass
- •14.5.2 Available Degrees of Freedom
- •14.5.3 Chromatic Correction
- •14.5.4 Spherical Correction
- •14.5.5 Correction of Coma and Field
- •14.5.6 Final Steps
- •14.6. The Cooke Triplet Lens
- •14.6.2 The Thin-Lens Predesign of the Bendings
- •14.6.3 Calculation of Real Aberrations
- •14.6.4 Triplet Lens Improvements
- •Endnotes
- •15.1. Comparison of Mirrors and Lenses
- •15.2. Ray Tracing a Mirror System
- •15.3. Single-Mirror Systems
- •15.3.1 A Spherical Mirror
- •15.3.2 A Parabolic Mirror
- •15.3.3 An Elliptical Mirror
- •15.3.4 A Hyperbolic Mirror
- •15.4. Single-Mirror Catadioptric Systems
- •15.4.1 A Flat-Field Ross Corrector
- •15.4.2 An Aplanatic Parabola Corrector
- •15.4.3 The Mangin Mirror
- •15.4.4 The Bouwers–Maksutov System
- •15.4.5 The Gabor Lens
- •15.4.6 The Schmidt Camera
- •15.4.7 Variable Focal-Range Infrared Telescope
- •15.4.8 Broad-Spectrum Afocal Catadioptric Telescope
- •15.4.9 Self-Corrected Unit-Magnification Systems
- •15.5. Two-Mirror Systems
- •15.5.1 Two-Mirror Systems with Aspheric Surfaces
- •15.5.2 A Maksutov Cassegrain System
- •15.5.3 A Schwarzschild Microscope Objective
- •15.5.4 Three-Mirror System
- •15.6. Multiple-Mirror Zoom Systems
- •15.6.2 All-Reflective Zoom Optical Systems
- •15.7. Summary
- •Endnotes
- •16.1. Design of a Military-Type Eyepiece
- •16.1.1 The Objective Lens
- •16.1.2 Eyepiece Layout
- •16.2. Design of an Erfle Eyepiece
- •16.3. Design of a Galilean Viewfinder
- •Endnotes
- •17.1. Finding a Lens Design Solution
- •17.1.1 The Case of as Many Aberrations as There Are Degrees of Freedom
- •17.1.2 The Case of More Aberrations Than Free Variables
- •17.1.3 What Is an Aberration?
- •17.1.4 Solution of the Equations
- •17.2. Optimization Principles
- •17.3. Weights and Balancing Aberrations
- •17.4. Control of Boundary Conditions
- •17.5. Tolerances
- •17.6. Program Limitations
- •17.7. Lens Design Computing Development
- •17.8. Programs and Books Useful for Automatic Lens Design
- •17.8.1 Automatic Lens Design Programs
- •17.8.2 Lens Design Books
- •Endnotes
- •Index
216 |
|
|
|
|
|
Design of a Spherically Corrected Achromat |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 7.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solutions for Flint-in-Front Configurations |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Left-hand solution |
|
|
|
Right-hand solution |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c |
|
d |
n |
|
c |
d |
n |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1317 |
|
|
|
|
0.3373 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
0.15 |
1.617 |
|
|
0.15 |
1.617 |
||
0.3917 |
|
|
|
|
0.6052 |
|
|
|
||
0.1079 |
|
0.414 |
1.523 |
|
|
0.454 |
1.523 |
|||
|
|
|
|
0.108114 |
|
|
|
|||
|
f 0 |
¼ |
9.9963 |
|
|
|
f 0 |
¼ 10.0564 |
|
|
|
l 0 |
¼ |
9.7994 |
|
|
|
l 0 |
¼ 9.4056 |
|
|
|
(f/5) LA0 |
¼ –0.00015 |
|
|
(f/5) LA0 |
¼ 0.00037 |
|
|
||
|
LZA ¼ –0.0052 |
|
|
|
LZA ¼ –0.0194 |
|
|
|||
be thought of as mountains, valleys, plains, and often pits. Possible solutions are found in the pits as they have the lower merit function values. With conventional optimization routines, the optical design program simply attempts to find the bottom of the pit local to the current location. However, the bottom of this pit may well not be the lowest and, consequently, not the optimum solution. (By optimum, we mean that the optical configuration solution having the smallest merit function value existing anywhere in the hyperspace; in other words, the global solution.)
Many of the optical design programs today include some form of what can generically be called global optimization. The objective of each searching approach these programs use is to locate the optimum solution or to give the designer a variety of potential solutions to consider. At times, “new” configurations have been found by allowing the number of elements and materials to vary. The achromat study just presented showed that there are exactly four perfect solutions for the merit function defined. A simple test that can be given to an optical design program is to find these four solutions. At least one optical design program is known to be able to automatically find these solutions.
7.3CORRECTION OF ZONAL SPHERICAL ABERRATION
If the zonal aberration in a lens system is found to be excessive, it can often be reduced by splitting the system into two lenses, each having half the lens power, in a manner analogous to the reduction of the marginal aberration of a single lens (see Section 6.1.6).
Another method that is frequently employed in a cemented system is to separate the cemented interface by a narrow parallel airgap. For this procedure to
7.3 Correction of Zonal Spherical Aberration |
217 |
be effective, there must be a large amount of spherical aberration in the airgap so that the marginal ray drops disproportionately rapidly as compared to the 0.7 zonal ray. The airgap therefore undercorrects the marginal aberration more rapidly than the zonal aberration. As the rear negative element is now not acting as strongly as before because of the reduction of incidence height, the last radius must be adjusted to restore the chromatic correction, ordinarily by use of the D d method. As the spherical aberration will now be strongly undercorrected, it must be restored by a bending of the whole lens. Using this procedure, it is often possible to correct both the marginal and the zonal aberrations simultaneously.
To determine the proper values of the airgap and the lens bending, we start with a cemented lens and introduce an arbitrary small parallel airgap, the last radius being found by the D – d method. The whole lens is then bent by trial until the marginal aberration is correct and the zonal aberration is found. If it is still negative, a wider airgap is required. The desired values are quickly found by plotting suitable graphs.
As an example, we may consider the following three f/3.3 systems. They each have a focal length of 10.0, and they are made from K-3 and F-4 glasses, the last radius in each case being found by the usual D – d procedure, as shown in Table 7.7.
System A is a well-corrected doublet of the ordinary type, but of unusually high aperture so as to illustrate the principle. The spherical aberration curve is shown as A in Figure 7.5. After introducing an airgap and suitably strengthening the last radius by the D – d method, we have System B. The change in aberrations as a result of the introduction of this airgap is
|
|
D |
LAmarginal |
0:116115 |
ratio 3:33 |
|
|
|
||||
|
|
DLAzonal |
¼ 0:034857 ) |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
¼ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 7.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Configurations of Three f/3.3 Achromatic Doublets |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A |
|
|
|
|
B |
|
|
|
C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c |
d |
n |
|
c |
d |
n |
|
c |
d |
n |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
0.259 |
|
|
|
0.259 |
|
|
0.236 |
|
|
|
||
0.75 |
1.51814 |
0.2518 |
0.75 |
1.51814 |
0.2748 |
0.75 |
1.51814 |
|||||
0.2518 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
0.25 |
1.61644 |
0.2518 |
0.0162 |
(air) |
0.2748 |
0.0162 |
(air) |
|||||
0.018048 |
|
|
|
0.25 |
1.61644 |
0.25 |
1.61644 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.005068 |
||||||
|
|
|
|
0.022487 |
|
|
|
|
||||
LAmarginal ¼ |
0.001252 |
|
0.114863 |
|
0.000211 |
|
|
|
||||
LAzonal ¼ –0.024094 |
0.058951 |
|
0.000345 |
|
|
|
||||||
218 |
Design of a Spherically Corrected Achromat |
M |
|
|
B |
Z |
A |
|
P
–0.14 –0.12 –0.10 –0.08 –0.06 –0.04 –0.02
86 |
−3.97 |
55.4 |
. |
3.64− |
|
. |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C
0 |
0.02 |
197.0 |
|
Figure 7.5 Effect of a narrow airgap on spherical aberration: (A) Cemented doublet; (B) effect of introducing a narrow airgap; (C) final solution.
We now bend the entire system to the left by Dc ¼ –0.023 to restore the aberrations. The changes now are
)
DLAmarginal ¼ 0:114652
ratio 1:93
DLAzonal ¼ 0:059296
If everything were ideal and only primary and secondary aberration were present, the latter ratio would be 2.0, and so we see that the changes due to bending are fairly linear in this respect. Examination of curve C shows the presence of tertiary aberration.
Unfortunately, although the marginal and 0.7 zonal aberrations are virtually zero in System C, there are sizable intermediate zonal residuals remaining. By tracing a few additional zonal rays at various heights of incidence, we can plot the spherical aberration graph of this system as curve C in Figure 7.5. However, it is evident that these unavoidable residuals are much smaller than the 0.7 zonal aberration of the original cemented System A. The designer should be careful in
7.3 Correction of Zonal Spherical Aberration |
219 |
adjusting the airgap to avoid the introduction of yet higher-order aberration terms. Somewhat improved performance can be achieved by shifting the zero zonal aberration point to a bit higher value of r. A problem likely to arise is that at least quintic aberration will now appear and have a rather significant value. The presence of the higher-order aberration makes the lens less tolerant to manufacturing and alignment errors.
When System A, after introducing a small airgap, was optimized by a typical lens design program using the same criteria as used in the preceding procedure, the resulting design was found to be quite similar, with the airgap being about one-third of System C. Figure 7.6 illustrates the longitudinal aberration and should be compared with curve C in Figure 7.5. It should be mentioned that there are many similar designs that have essentially the same performance as the airgap is varied and the curvatures are readjusted.
DESIGNER NOTE
An alternative procedure that can be applied to reduce zonal aberration is to thicken a lens element, provided there is a large amount of undercorrected aberration within the glass. This is done frequently in photographic objectives, such as in Double-Gauss lenses of high aperture. Of course, introducing an air space by breaking cemented surfaces can be done in concert with element thickening.
M
Z
P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
–0.02 |
–0.016 |
–0.012 |
–0.008 |
–0.004 |
0 |
0.004 |
0.008 |
0.012 |
0.016 |
0.02 |
Figure 7.6 Longitudinal spherical aberration for an achromatic doublet having a small airgap designed using a computer optical design program.
